MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767269462 · doi:10.1109/icsme.2017.13

An Exploratory Study of Performance Regression Introducing Code Changes

2017· article· en· W2767269462 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRegression testingPerformance metricSoftware qualityBenchmark (surveying)CommitPerformance predictionReliability engineeringSoftware performance testingQuality (philosophy)Software regressionMetric (unit)Software bugSoftwareRegression analysisPerformance indicatorSoftware metricCode (set theory)RegressionMachine learningSoftware developmentSimulationOperating systemStatisticsDatabaseEngineeringSoftware constructionOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performance is an important aspect of software quality. In fact, large software systems failures are often due to performance issues rather than functional bugs. One of the most important performance issues is performance regression. Examples of performance regressions are response time degradation and increased resource utilization. Although performance regressions are not all bugs, they often have a direct impact on users' experience of the system. Due to the possible large impact of performance regressions, prior research proposes various automated approaches that detect performance regressions. However, the detection of performance regressions is conducted after the fact, i.e., after the system is built and deployed in the field or dedicated performance testing environments. On the other hand, there exists rich software quality research that examines the impact of code changes on software quality; while a majority of prior findings do not use performance regression as a sign of software quality degradation. In this paper, we perform an exploratory study on the source code changes that introduce performance regressions. We conduct a statistically rigorous performance evaluation on 1,126 commits from ten releases of Hadoop and 135 commits from five releases of RxJava. In particular, we repetitively run tests and performance micro-benchmarks for each commit while measuring response time, CPU usage, Memory usage and I/O traffic. We identify performance regressions in each test or performance micro-benchmark if there exists statistically significant degradation with medium or large effect sizes, in any performance metric. We find that performance regressions widely exist during the development of both subject systems. By manually examining the issue reports that are associated with the identified performance regression introducing commits, we find that the majority of the performance regressions are introduced while fixing other bugs. In addition, we identify six root-causes of performance regressions. 12.5% of the examined performance regressions can be avoided or their impact may be reduced during development. Our findings highlight the need for performance assurance activities during development. Developers should address avoidable performance regressions and be aware of the impact of unavoidable performance regressions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207